are currently designated as wilderness. the legislation would dedesignate these 222 acres. the legislation also settles a longtime standing dispute between the olympic national park and the tribe over the northern boundary of the reservation. the resolution of this dispute benefits the tribe, the park service and the general public. the park would provide 510 acres to the tribe to settle the dispute. the bill would place into trust these two par sells as well as another piece of -- parcels as well as another piece of land. the bill guarantees access for the public for some of the most beautiful washington state beaches. i must note, however, i am disappointed that a provision of h.r. 1162 was taken from the bill when the natural resource committee passed this last october. the legislation, as introduced, mitigated the lost of

wilderness designation for the 222 acres to be given to the tribe by designating other parcels already within olympic national park as wilderness. it was this provision designating new wilderness within the park that was removed. i introduced h.r. 3222 that would designate as wilderness those acres stripped from the underlying bill. the national parks forest held a hearing back in december and i urge the committee to keep making progress on h.r. 3222. . in closing i want to recognize the quileute tribe, its consule and tribal chairs past and present along with the national park service director, john jarvis, and the olympic national park superintendent, karen gustin, for their hard work over many years to resolve this dispute and provide safer land for the tribe. and again, i want to thank congressman hastings, the chairman of the natural resources committee, and todd

young and todd of his staff. i want to thank national parks forest and public lands subcommittee chairman rob bishop and jim streeter of his staff. on the democratic side, i want to thank ed markey and the gentleman from the northern marianas and their staff and pete on my staff. in closing, i urge the house to pass h.r. 1162, to provide the quileute tribe a safer home along the pacific coast in washington state and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i advise my friend, i have no more requests for speakers. if he's prepared to yield back -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i'm pleased that this legislation is moving forward. i know this has been something that's been worked on by my friend and colleague from washington for some time and i'm glad we finally got this far and hopefully now that it's a clean

bill, that really deals with the safety of the quileute tribe, which is the important part, and that's the reason for the bill, i hope we can move very fast through this house and obviously through the senate and with that i urge adoption of h.r. 1162 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1162 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed, point of no quorum is withdrawn. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

our guest to talk about the s- chip program is samantha artiga with the kaiser family foundation.

how long has this program been around? guest: the program was enacted in 1997. it was designed as a bipartisan piece of legislation to fill the growing gap for children whose families earn too much to qualify for medicaid but their parents did not have access to or cannot afford private coverage for them. all states expanded coverage after chip was enacted. many children gained coverage through chip and medicaid. there has been a striking decrease in the number and rates of uninsured children since the program began.

the coverage is key for providing children access to check ups and care they need for healthy growth and development and providing peace of mind to their parents. host: in 2001, the numbers were about 4.6 million kids that were enrolled. in 2005, it went up to 6.9 million. do you see the need growing around the country? guest: as the country has been going through economic decline, families have been losing jobs and experiencing decreases in income. we see an increased need for

programs like chip and medicaid because more families have low income. the other thing we have seen is states have engaged in significant efforts to get children enrolled in the programs. chip has ushered in a lot of innovation of the state level to reach out to families and make the processes for getting coverage as family-friendly as possible. host: samantha artiga is the associate director of the kaiser family foundation on medicaid and the uninsured. she will be with us for about 35 more minutes. we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for this test. -- for this guest. this is a segment entitled "your money." let's talk about dollars. the five-year funding program is about $44 billion. how is it being spent? is it enough?

guest: it is a state and federal partnership. they share costs for the program. states administer the program within a broad set of federal guidelines. the program has been very appealing for states because the federal government shares a greater portion of the cost relative to medicaid. those dollars are going towards funding health care for children. there has also been finding directed at helping states reach out and find the eligible kids as well as an increasing focus on quality in the program. host: what age range are we talking about? guest: in general, kids 0 through 19. there is variation across the country in terms of which children will be eligible for

the program. most states cover children up to at least two times the federal poverty level. that means about $37,000 for a family of three. host: this is planned activity as of september last year. the map is separated into three different colors. blue shows separate health care plans in 17 states. give us more insight. guest: one of the key aspects of the program is that it provides states a lot of control over design and operation choices. one of the key choices is how they structure the program. the state can implement the program as an expansion of their medicaid program in which case the program follows all

the rules of medicaid, or they can create an entirely separate program and have more flexibility over the benefits they provide to children as well as the costs charged to families. the third option is a combination of both. states might control region provide coverage through medicaid expansion -- the states might control -- the states might provide coverage through medicaid expansion and then additional coverage through another program. we've seen increased participation for all types of structures. host: the green states are the combination states. there are 26 of them. san antonio, texas, martha, a democrat, you are on with samantha artiga.

caller: when the children get insured, do the parents have a job or not? at the end, sometimes they have to pay penalties. why is it that the government charges a penalty for the grown-ups because they have insurance when they have applied for medicare b? i think that is not the right thing. now they are going to charge for those of you do not have insurance for grown-ups and their children. now they have to pay for penalties. i do not see the logic.

we send the government money for so many years by paying our own way even when my husband had no job. we made sure we had insurance for our children, health insurance and life insurance. host: let's get some insight from our guest. guest: i am not sure which penalty she is referring to. she could be referring to the fact that when the house reformed some key provisions for 2014, individuals will be required to have health insurance. if they do not meet certain criteria, they will need to pay a certain amount of penalties. the situation facing children in these families who are receiving coverage through chip, often the parents are employed but maybe in a job that does not

offer health coverage as a benefit. the coverage may only be available to the worker and not to the spouse or children. even when the coverage is available, the premium cost may be unaffordable for that family given that they are generally in lower wage positions. we are seeing the average full family premium cost is just over $15,000 per year. usually employers pay a larger share of that with the employee paying the remainder. that share will vary across employers and industries. we do tend to see lower wage positions that the dependent coverage is not as available and the workers may need to pay a higher share of the cost. host: what services are covered under chip and what is not

covered? guest: states have a lot of discretion over how they operate the programs. each make their own decisions about what the benefit package will look like within broad federal guidelines. there are some services the states are required to cover including well-child visits and immunizations, the basic primary and dental care that children need. states have flexibility to make their own decisions beyond the federal guidelines. host: wes is a republican from louisiana. caller: the kaiser foundation, is that part of the kaiser medical facilities? guest: we are an independent operating foundation. we are named after the same person but have no affiliation with the kaiser health plans or industries.

we're not affiliated or connected with them in any way. caller: and retired military. -- i am retired military. kaiser will not accept medicare. i was wondering why they will not. there are many retired military. host: i am not sure that is relevant to our guest. we're talking about the children's health insurance program. anything about that? caller: my children are about as old as i am. host: let's hear from barbara in kalamazoo. caller: i am in favor of taking care of children. my concern is what can be done to stop people on medicaid from using the e.r. as the primary

doctor referral. why can there not be a phrase in there that you have to have a doctor and take them to the doctor? an emergency room is an emergency room and not a health doctor. can you respond to that in any way? going to a doctor's appointment is cheaper for medicaid and going to an e.r. i can cite many people using the e.r. as the doctor. up house resolution 537 and ask tore its

immediate consideration. the clerk: house calendar 109, house resolution 137, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declared the house resolved in the committee of the whole house for consideration of the bill h.r. 1734 to decrease the deficits by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian real property and for other purposes sm the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. all debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceed one hour equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on

transportation and infrastructure, an amendment consisting of the text of the rule committee print 112-111 shall be considered adopted in the house and committee of the whole. the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waved. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report in the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report and may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and debatable equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived.

at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and any further amendment thereto to final passage without into veeng motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: i yield the customary 30 minutes the gentleman from colorado, mr. pole is, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. all time yield its is for purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. webster: i rise in support of this bill and underlying bill. house resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 1734 civilian property realignment

act. the rule makes six amendments in order. one of these, five are democrat-sponsored amendments and one republican. the only amendments not made in order are either because of lack of germanity. h.r. 1734 has come to the floor under regular order. the subcommittee held two hearings on the subject and there were six other hearings on federal property consolidation. the subcommittee held a markup and subsequently passed the bill by voice vote. the full committee also held a markup during which several amendments were considered before the bill was reported out by the committee. h.r. 1734 enjoys bipartisan list of co-sponsors. the civilian property realignment act enjoys bipartisan support because it attacks a bipartisan issue making government work more

efficiently in order to better safeguard taxpayer dollars. the federal executive branch agencies hold an extensive amount of property that includes 4259,000 buildings and over a million total prompts. the federal government is the largest owner and manager of real estate in our country. the office of management and budget estimated the federal government is holding $18 billion in real property. if we sold all excess properties resulting in proceeds could approach $15 billion on top of the annual savings reaped. these properties have been accumulated by agencies over time and many cases these agencies' missions have evolved over that period. as missions change so agencies' needs change. many properties that were once crucial have become less useful or some cases unneeded all together. according to the congressional

research service in fiscal year 2009, the most recent data available, the government held 10,327 unneeded buildings and spent $134 million annually to maintain them. according to the office of management and budget, testimony delivered before congress, the federal government also has approximately 55,000 properties classified as underutilized and cost taxpayers $1.7 bill yonl to operate underutilized federal buildings. h.r. 1734 would establish an independent commission to make recommendations to congress to better manage the inventory of federal-civilian real property. the commission consisting of eight members appointed by the president would report annually on their findings. under the bill within six months of enactment, the commission would identify and recommend to the president and congress to

sell at least five high-valued properties with a fair market of at least $500 million. both the president and congress would have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of these recommendations. the president could transmilt recommendations from the commission with or without his approval to congress where an up or down vote could take place under the expedited procedure. this is modeled after the base alignment and closure process which would require an examination of federal-civilian properties across the government used and unused and make decisions based on the best return to the taxpayer. military installations, properties deemed essential for reasons of national security and national parks are not subject to the commission's jurisdiction. the cost of savings initiative -- initially would achieve reduction in the size of

inventory by selling or redeveloping unutilized properties, increasing the utilization and disposing surplus property. given the vast real estate holdings, poor mismanagement opportunities cost the taxpayers significant sums of money. the government accountability office has placed the real property management on its high risk governmental activities citing excess. deteriorating facilities, unreliable data and over-- over reliance on costly leasing. h.r. 1734, the civilian property realignment act seeks to reduce the federal government's footprint, increase efficiency and ultimately enhance stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. it isn't just about closing buildings. it's about looking at the taxpayers' assets and deciding

whether or not we are being efficiently utilized. given the realities of the current economy, this is the same type of belt-tightening taking place all over our nation right now. it's time for our government to start leading by example. once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the underlying bill and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank my colleague from florida yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to the structured rule. the unemployment numbers are at the lowest, our american economy is teatering and it is important for democrats and republicans to come together. this underlying the civilian property realignment act stemmed

from president obama's proposal in his f.y. 2012 budget and i'm glad congress is beginning the deliberative process on this issue. the federal government owns and manages over one million buildings and structures, which cost over $20 billion a year annually to operate and maintain. this bill seeks to make sure that our government is a better steward by improving management of surplus property and ut laysation of assets to reduce our deficit. this bill sets up the process to consolidate, sell or exchange federal government assets that it no longer needs. sounds like common sense, but it hasn't been yet. as the president identified estimated 14,000 buildings and structures are currently designated as excess properties. in essence, this legislation attempts to deal with federal government property what the department of defense has successfully already done with its base closure and realignment

program and attempt to remove politics from the process so effectively our federal holdings can be streamlined and that money can be raised from properties that are no longer necessary for the operations of the federal government. to accomplish this goal, this legislation sets up an independent civilian property realignment commission, which would recommend which federal properties should be consolidated, sold, exchanged or redeveloped. the downsizing recommendations would be subject to the approval of the president and then by congress before they could be implemented. the underlying legislation should be a strong bipartisan bill. unfortunately, there are a number of last-minute considerations which are causing some contention between the two parties, and i understand that some language has been added, including contentious riders that were added without a hearing or meeting of the democratic side. the current language, therefore,

includes some offensive provisions that will jeopardize support on my side of the aisle including a measure that would change federal law to add homeless shelters received and a provision that waives compliance with the national environmental policy or nepa act, part of the ongoing republican agenda to gut environmental protections, but a policy waiver which has nothing to do with managing our federal property. when assets are transferred, they have important roles in communities whether urban, suburban or rural are common practice is a critical piece ensuring that all stake holders are taken into account. if there is a flaw with nepa, fix it elsewhere but not in the context of the bill that allows us to sell off excess property. another problem with this bill

is the new programs funded under this bill are not funded. the nonpartisan congressional budget office stilts that this bill would cost $68 million over the next five years. now some on the other side might argument that delrg 68 million isn't much money, but as a matter of principle, it should have an offset. this violates the cut-as-you-go protocols and example of the majority spending without saying where it's going to come from. this bill in its current form would increase our deficit by $68 million. it would be relatively easy in a bipartisan manner to figure out where we can find $68 million elsewhere in the budget to offset this so it doesn't go directly to the deficit. in addition, the bill bfs us limits debate. during the rules committee meeting last week democrats asked for an open rule so members could offer amendments.

the majority rejected an open process. the ranking member of the house oversight committee, representative cummings offered an amendment. this was a germane amendment that would be allowed on the floor if this were an open rule, yet it is blocked by this restrictive process. this is one example of an amendment brought to the rules committee and what this debate inspires other members to offer commonsense amendments including offset ideas. under this process before us, that member's amendment will not be allowed no matter how good or how much universal process. i urge a no vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i recognize the gentleman from california, mr.

den him. . mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. it is something that is important for the american taxpayer. we have enough partisan divide here to be able to find something that cuts waste, something that brings in revenue without raising taxes and just a more efficient way of doing business is something that both republicans and democrats should agree on. but certainly, you know, politics enters into many different situations. as of friday we had a bipartisan agreement, i was willing to accept all of the various amendments including the amendment to neep, including the homeless -- nepa, including the homeless amendment. we have accepted amendments on several different occasions. first it was a $2 million exemption for homeless to be able to grab a $2 million piece of property. then it was renegotiated to $3 million. and then $5 million. why the homeless would need ads 5 million piece of property is beyond me. but in the sense of bipartisanship we were willing

to agree to that. so that amendment is still on the floor today. we still accept that amendment. we stand by our word. but the other side has decided to interject politics into this and we will see how that works out in the future. but the last issue i wanted to just touch on was clarifying an important point about the savings of this bill. this will generate significant savings but i just want to touch on how c.b.o. scores those savings. first, the bill authorizes $20 million for the commission itself. this is just to set up a commission. and $62 million to fund relocation or cleanup costs that may be needed if one of these properties actually has some occupants in them. this $82 million is subject to appropriations and requires congress to approve a future appropriation. second, within the first 180 days the bill requires the commission to recommend at least five properties worth a minimum of $500 million for sale. whenson scored this provision in the reported version of the bill, c.b.o. said it would save at least $160 million in the first five years.

this requirement to sell at least $500 million in property is still in the bill. however since the bill was modified to require the approval of congress before they conscious -- mr. webster: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. denham: since the bill was modified to require the approval of congress before they can be implemented, c.b.o. now says the savings will be scored on the future approval resolution and not in this bill before us today. the savings that will be generated by this commission still exist. this will be scored at a later date. only in washington, d.c., can you get rid of properties, get rid of the cost of maintaining these properties, have billions of dollars in revenue, actually create jobs in the redevelopment sale of the properties and still are able to argue against the savings. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. >> i inquire if the gentleman from florida has any remaining speakers? mr. webster: mr. speaker, we have no other presenters. we're ready to close.

mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. i'll yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from florida. i know that significant issues still remain with civilian property realignment act in its current form. the gentleman discussed the potential savings from this bill and to be clear, this is a transfer of items that are already in the asset column of the federal government. it's not the creation of new value or new money out of nothing. it simply turns assets into cash. we need cash, we have a large deficit to cover and it makes sense to sell excess properties. but this really -- but this money doesn't come from nowhere. once those properties are sold, they'll no longer objecten the ledgers of the federal government. it saves significant operatinging capital and maintenance of these unnecessary properties but again i think common sense would indicate that in the commission cost $20 million to set up with the various people involved with

this process, we should specify where that money is coming from in the bill. and i think that there would be a way to do that on a bipartisan basis. given all the concerns that remain with this bill, regarding how it's paid for, the homeless situation and the nepa, the environmental review protections, we should be engaged in an open process, not one that limits and shuts down debate. the american people are frustrated that this congress refuses to consider bipartisan supported balanced bills. that would stimulate job growth in our country and restore fiscal responsibility. we can only reignite the american dream and reinvigorate our economy by strengthening the middle class and encouraging innovation. president obama's introduced a package to spur small business growth in startups which includes many of the proposals previously offered by members on both sides of the aisle with bipartisan support. and yet to the dismay of many on my side of the aisle this congress has yet to consider these measures that will

strengthen the middle class and help small businesses grow. i do applaud the majority for beginning to take up the process that president obama has put forth in his fiscal year 2012 budget of selling off excess federal property. they're there just remain a few i's to dot and a few t's to cross to ensure this important piece of legislation can garner the support of the bipartisan majority in this body. there remains much work to be done. the large issues included enacting a comprehensive jobs plan, extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, ensuring seniors have access to the doctors under medicare, comprehensive tax reform and putting our fiscal house in order by passing a bold and balanced plan to reduce the deficit. selling off excess federal assets and making sure that the federal government doesn't own or have to maintain or operate more than we need to is a small but critical piece of the overall equation. this congress has the opportunity to get it right through a deliberative process but because the majority's

restricted debate on the underlying bill, i cannot support this rule and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, the cost of real property the federal government, costs are very significant. most agencies do not have the intendtifics to minimize those costs. properties sit vacant and woefully underutilized, not only costing taxpayers billions of dollars but often are eye sores in local communities and -- soars in local communities and steal property away from the revenues of local communities. even so, despite the current budget climate many agencies continue to seek more space than is necessary, reducing efficiency and increasing costs. better management of federal property presents an opportunity to reduce expenditures and increase revenues. h.r. 1734 is a bipartisan measure. it seeks to address a problem that has become a halmark of our

bloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy. h.r. 1734 is intended to bring an independent process, outside the bureaucratic red tape, to manage -- to the management of real property owned by the federal government. it will reduce waste, increase efficiency of the federal government and produce significant savings for the taxpayer. with deficits over $1 trillion in the federal government, we simply cannot afford to sit on money-losing properties and empty federal buildings any longer. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and passage of the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this

question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately in recess until approximately 6:30

>> good afternoon, ladies and diamond. thanks for coming to the white house daily briefing. before i take questions, let me read a brief announcement. on wednesday, february 29, president obama and first lady michelle obama will host a dinner at the warehouse to honor our armed forces who served in operation iraqi freedom and operation new dawn. this dinner is to express the nation's gratitude and achieve -- for the achievement of those who served in the iraq war and those who supported them. it will be a many ranks and backgrounds. will release more details regarding the dinner when they become available.

>> is that a fair description? tuesday it is the state style dinner? >> no, i think it is unique to the style of government that it is. a state dinner house heads of government, heads of state. >> [unintelligible] >> [unintelligible] >> i think a state dinner is probably not quite accurate. we will have more details to describe it for you. it is focused on the men and women who served in iraq. women who served in iraq. in all stations within the armed services. i think one distinction might be that state dinners are about the elevated and important guess that we have visiting from other countries. be for all ofd-b those who served in iraq.

i do not have the number on it, but february 29. >> [inaudible] >> i do not have that either. the folks in uniform tend to wear their uniforms, but i do not have any dress or menu or entertainment. with that, i will take questions. or i will take more questions. >> on iran, on the prospect of a broader sanctions and more sanctions this spring, there is an indication that the white house is worried that israel will act on its own before these sanctions have a chance to kick in? >> no, i think it is reflective of the policy that we have taken for quite a long time in reaction to iranian behavior, which is essentially, a dual which is essentially, a dual track where we continue to have an offer to the iranians that if

they get serious about their international obligations, if they respond to the letter from lady ashton about starting negotiations with the p-5 plus negotiations with the p-5 plus one , if they agreed to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, then there is an option for them to rejoin the international community. meanwhile, because they have not done that and have continued to pursue a course that is dangerous, but we will grandpapramp up the effort to ie the regime, working with our international allies. i think the president answered a question regarding israel and during his interview with matt lauer over the weekend. >> given the development with our about today about the additional sanctions. >> remember, there has been a

steady increase in our sanctions activity. this is part of that escalation. it is not related specifically to that issue, or the questions about it. about it. >> the questions about israel . on syria, since about sawyer, the u.n. security council rejected the plan -- the u.n. -- since we last saw you, the u.n. security council rejected a plan put forward by the u.s. the president, in his msnbc interview, said that the noose is tightening on the assad regime. what is that based upon? it seems to outsiders that the regime is operating freely. >> there's no question he is operating with a gross disregard for the health and safety and welfare of his own

people. he is killing his own people. and as we witnessed this, it only reinforces the need for the international community to act. and in this deployment that we have with the members of the u.n. security council that did not go with the rest of the international community in favor of the anti-syrian regime resolution, the fact of the matter is, the pressure on assad continues to intensify. he has dwindling financial resources. he has dwindling access to what he needs to continue to govern. his regime has lost control of parts of the country. there are a number of indications of the desire to depart from the regime by senior

syrian government and military officials. these are telltale signs that assad's future is very limited, at best. we continue to work with the international community to do everything we can to enhance the pressure on him, to enmake it clear to everyone that they should not one want to make a bet on the regime because it is a losing bet. it is a losing bet in political terms, but also in terms of being on the right side of the people of syria. >> the last one on this, given the killing that you described, the president seemed frustrated with those that blocked the international effort, china and russia. and >> i think that what i just

said reflects our view, which is, those who voted against the resolution need to realize that betting everything on assad is a recipe for failure, not just for the interest of those countries, but for the stability of the region and for syria's future. what we have seen, the video that we have seen just recently coming out of syria demonstrates the appalling actions of the government forces. and you have a great number of countries, obviously, the united states, europe, and arab countries that see this for what it is. we will continue to work with our ranch -- international partners to make that case. >> to china was part of the double veto against the syrian

resolution in the u.n. security council. there's a little over one week before the chinese vice- president and visits washington. what will president obama say to the vice-president when they need? >> i do not have an agenda in terms of discussions for those meetings. i think we have made clear our disappointment that those votes were cast. there is a range of issues to be discussed. you know, bilateral relationship with china, those things that will be discussed during a visit. >> [inaudible] with either china or russia? >> again, this is about what the international community's response to syrian action should be. there as been a great deal of collective action taken against the syrian regime to thus far,

and there will be greater action taken. we will work with the syrian people to continue to pressure the regime and to make clear numbered.'s days are we will also work with the chinese and russians on a host of other issues, even as we press this point, obviously. >> the president has called on -- as you mentioned, the friends of assyrian democracy, to stand in other and help the syrian opposition. is there any thought to giving military assistance to the rebels but are fighting? >> we believe the right solution in syria is a political solution. there remains an opportunity for that to be achieved, for that transition to democracy to take place. that is why we felt, and continue to feel it is so important for the international community to act in a way that the security council has acted

to embody to work with our international partners, because the best solution is a political solution. broadly speaking, we take no options off the table, but our focus is on using diplomatic, economic, and other means to help bring about an usher in a democratic transition. >> do we know how many americans are actually in egypt, of those staying on the judge's order? >> i do not want to get into specifics about the order. we are deeply disturbed by the crackdown against ngo's in egypt, including the filing of charges against americans. groups like the international republican institute, the national democratic institute, and many others -- both american and egyptian -- have done nothing wrong. their only assignment is to support egypt in its transition

to democracy. these groups and individuals associated do not find political parties or candidates. many of them have worked in egypt for several years. their activities are not new. moreover, they recently served as observers for the parliamentary elections, at the request of the government of egypt. we continue to communicate at all levels with the egyptian government are grave concerns about the crackdown against have said clearly that these crackdowns could have consequences with the relationship regarding our assistance programs. >> what would it take to trigger a cut off of the dollars of the u.s.? >> i do not want to speculate about what that would be. we make clear that if we take this very seriously. -- that we take this very seriously. these actions could have consequences for our relationship, including our

assistance programs, but i do not want to speculate about what actions might precipitate a response on our part along those lines, except to say that we take this very seriously. it is important to remember that these institutions have been there for a number of years and have been all over the country reporting -- promoting democracy. and these individuals have done nothing wrong. >> some of these individuals are from the united states. do you have any idea how many? >> bill, i do not want to get into space of numbers or names. there are some americans who have opted to stay in the embassy, while waiting for permission to depart each. they are staying in the compound in the embassy in egypt. >> at what level are the discussions about these

individuals continuing? at every level. annika leval we spoke with the general a number of data -- on the private level, we spoke with the general a number of days ago and discussions from that level on down will continue. i do not have any new communications involving the president to read r.t. you now. but you can be sure we are engaging with the egyptian government at this -- on this government at this -- on this issue at every level. >> yesterday in your interview with -- in the interview with matt. >> he means that power. >> -- matt lauer. [laughter] wrong, it'se if i'm out of like the president was

contradicting the intelligence report that the folks gave on capitol hill earlier in the week about attacking iran. the president seemed to say there was not the case. there was not the case. it sounded like a contradiction of the intelligence community. >> you know i will not get into discussions of details regarding iran or anyone else here. i will refer you to the president's comments about what he assessed about their current intentions and capabilities to be. we do not hear from a variety of channels, including very public ones, the-intentions of certain iranian leaders toward the united states -- the negative intentions of certain iranian

leaders toward the united states, including bellicose ones. but iran is a dangerous regime and we take the specific refusal to abandon their nuclear ambitions very seriously. >> when the president said israel has not made a decision yet about attacking iran, it should be implied that the united states has made a decision that will not happen in the next three months? >> i would not imply anything at all, except the explicit comment that the president made. two things, one, we have greater intelligence operations israel that we have ever had. -- with israel than we have ever had. weddie said was that he believes -- what he said was that he believes israel has not made decision about what action to take, or whether or not to take

the action that has been discussed. >> [inaudible] >> i will not get into that kind of assessment. i will say that we believe that the course that we are pursuing in regards to iran is the right one, that the sanctions have had significant impact on the iranian economy. they have helped exacerbate tensions within the iranian leadership that are now quite apparent. whereas, when president obama took office, iran was unified and the world was not with regard to iranian nuclear ambitions. the opposite is not true. -- is now true. and that has had the effect of making clear to the world that the problem here is iranian behavior. we will continue to pursue that course and press for change in behavior by the iranian regime, even as the president has made

clear on a number of occasions that we will not remove any options from the table. >> are you saying it is dependent on the intentions of the iranian leadership? >> i am saying that they attribute to -- >> i know, but are you saying that your policies have created tension? >> there is no question that the impact of the isolation on iran and the economic sanctions on iran have caused at the turmoil within iran. and that has had an impact at a variety of levels, most demonstrably, on the economy and the currency. the unity that iran enjoyed, if you will, with regard to this issue three years ago is gone. and by contrast, the international community has united behind the position the president has taken with our

allies and partners to pressure iran to try to force iran to change its behavior. >> [unintelligible] >> [unintelligible] >> i work my way back to you. >> i work my way back to you. >> to syria and egypt, there has been the suggestion of a contact group of like-minded nations to step up pressure on the regime. have you begun to do that? how will that work? >> we have been working very closely with a number of partners and allies, both in the region and around the world, as we have worked to put pressure on assad and will continue to do that. we are carefully considering a full range of options. and we will work closely with our allies and others to help the people of syria put an end to this criminal regime. >> you do not want to see just how that might be more effective than what we are doing now?

>> i think we are pursuing a variety of means to pressure on the assad regime, to isolate it further. the fact is, he is running out of money and we will make sure that he is unable to finance his continued crackdown. that involves coordination with our allies and partners, those who believe as we do that it is time for assad to go, because the syrian people deserve a transition to democracy. >> what about weapons and the ability to sell weapons? >> again, we believe political is the right course here. that is why we believe the u.n. security council should act. we are continuing to work with our international allies and partners, who believe as we do, that the behavior a of the

hotssad regime is -- of the regime is unacceptable and reprehensible. >> do the partners assume that prosecution would cross the line? >> i do not want to speculate about what actions would prompt what reactions. we are deeply concerned about the crackdown against ngo's. we are concerned about the and we are working at every level of the government to solve this issue. >> do they know what would affect the u.s. aid? >> we have made it clear both in our communications and statements that these actions could have consequences for our relationship to and for our assistance programs.

yes? >> on syria, two days ago, the u.s. failed to get action. have you given up on the security council? do you think there is a chance we could go back to the security council? and what about the evacuation of the american embassy in damascus today? what point does that make? >> as you know, we have been drawing down our personnel at the embassy for some time because of security concerns, and that is why we have closed that embassy today, and all american personnel have departed the country. that is a reflection of the situation in syria with respect to the safety of those individuals. we will continue to work at every level to coordinate with those who believe as we do that action needs to be taken because, that it is just not the

right course to help prop the assad regime, that we need to continue to put pressure on him and his cronies, if you will, and to further isolate him, limits his access to financial resources, and therefore make it harder and harder for him to maintain this crackdown. as you know, he has lost control of part of the country already, and we will work with all friends of syria, the syrian people rather, to mount the pressure on assad. >> is president obama willing to wait it it takes months, a year? >> i do not want to speculate on how this plays out. we need to act to allow a political peaceful transition to go forward before the escalating violence of the regime put that out of reach.

john? >> can you be specific at all about conversation the president may have had? >> i do not have any new conversations to read out. we are obviously coordinating with all of our national origin international allies and partners, both at the united nations and within the region. but i do not have any specific conversations to read out to you. jackie? >> when prime minister netanyahu comes to this country, will he also be meeting with the president, and if not, why not? >> i do not have a scheduling update for you on that, but i am sure we will have something for you in due time. connie? connie? >> does that mean and that the u.s. is -- a strike against

iran? >> i do not recall the quote being quite as you describe it. our level of cooperation with israel, militarily and in intelligence matters has never been higher. we have made that point repeatedly. because i think it demonstrates this country's commitment to israel's security, but, obviously, israel is a sovereign country, and it has a very legitimate concerns, excuse me, about iran's development of a nuclear weapons capacity, and we share those concerns, there is no question. yes? >> i have a question about the contraception coverage. a backlash not just among the

catholic clergy. it seems to not have taken into account the reaction you have got, even from erstwhile allies. i guess if there was any effort to find middle ground, like telling them they could go and get coverage if they want. >> what i think is the case is early on, after this decision was made, there was some misreporting about what it is and what it is not. i think lost in the initial reports is this policy provides for an exemption and churches and houses -- abortion. places like georgia and wisconsin. it did not make it clear that there are 28 states that require these kind of

preventive services to be included in insurance policies for women, as this policy does. we saw a lot of opinion, as a policy process took place, and behind the idea of trying to find the right, appropriate balance between religious concerns on the one hand and the need to provide health-care coverage to women across the country, and here is i think an important point to notice. again, churches, houses of worship are exempted from this policy, those institutions where women of all faiths, many faiths worked need to have the same coverage that all other american women have, so we will continue in the coming year, as i think was a little bit lost in the coverage, to work with those

with the does institutions to try to implement this policy in a way that ensures women have access to preventive care but tries to allay the concerns of these institutions, because we take very seriously people's religious beliefs and their objections, and that is the balance that we have sought in this policy, and it is the balance we will seek in these conversations going forward. >> but in these conversations going forward, are you going to consider something like -- i believe there is one area where they are able to go in and purchase coverage if they want to. >> that is beyond my policy expertise of this conversation, but i want to make clear about the secretary's decision, and the president concurs with it, this coverage needs to be available to all american women, and -- >> are there other ways --

>> we will work with other institutions to try to implement this in a way to make sure the coverage is provided, and it comes to allay the concerns that are there. yes? >> on the unemployment numbers that came out on friday, very good news, not to diminish that. still, there are 19 million underemployed or unemployed americans. how concerned is the white house that these numbers will have to be cut before we see a real recovery and people re-entering the work force? >> there are those who i suppose do not wish us well politically have tried to make a point of this, and the facts are that in these most recent numbers, this is not an issue of people leaving the work force. the numbers are positive across the board. now, what we have said -- >> that is a reality. that is not a political point to

score. people stop looking for work. >> a large percentage of that is due to younger people getting more education, which in the end is an economic positive. there is also a fact that this increase in the number of people leaving the work force has been a trend and a fact since 2000 because of an aging population, which is not to say that this is -- this is not something that i would holy this regard as an issue, but the underlying factor is that education remains the paramount objective of our economic policy and should be the objective of congress, as well. if those folks in the back are with me, i have a slide i can point to, if i might. maybe not. we will see.

but the issue here is everything we can do -- the magic. i think what is important to note is the size of the whole we are in -- of the hole we are in and the steady progress that has taken place since the president's policies have taken effect, and we need to continue to work with congress, for example, to extend the payroll tax cuts through the end of the calendar year. as the president has said, we need to do that without drama and without delay, and congress has to make sure they do not do anything to jon up the progress we have made. we have made. >> be used the term "deserve."

"i deserve a second term." does anyone deserved a second term? >> i think what he was trying to make was that he has worked every day since he was sworn into office on his number-one priority, which she articulated even before he ran for president. it was what he got into politics in the first place, which was to ensure that those struggling to stay in the middle class, to better their lives, and those struggling to get into it have been under pressure for quite a long time, and he is determined as president to do everything he can change that dynamic, and when he came into office, we were an economic free fall. again, the context was, based on his performance and his administration's performance on economic policy, the question was, do you deserve reelection, and since he came into office, a

terrible trend has been reversed. the problem is that the whole is a deep caused by the recession -- the hole is so deep, caused by the recession, we cannot allow congress to jon up the progress we have made. we must extend the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and do the of the things that the president put forward in the state of the union that america can last, that american manufacturing continues to rebound. 50,000 of those jobs created last month were in american manufacturing, a segment that had been in chronic decline for many, many years. we need to continue to develop skills for the workers that can compete in the 21st century and make sure we can do all of it as we return to the kind of american values that makes sure that everybody gets a fair shot and that everybody plays by the same set of rules.

>> the department of justice has been working with the state attorneys general with some of the big banks. they get off of the hook on some things in exchange for helping out homeowners. is the a administration making calls to the -- is the administration making calls to the a.g.'s? >> as i understand it, the settlement we are talking and has to do with robo signing and not the broader set of issues involved in mortgage-backed securities and that sort of thing, but i do not have a progress update for you on that or any kind of detail in terms of our engagement on the issue. yes? >> yesterday, the super bowl --

>> i did not have a team growing up. >> did the illustration have anything to do with that advertisement or advising on that advertisement? >> no. when i saw it, look. i think -- >> -- >> the answer to your question, roger, is no. the company has rebounded. they obviously want to sell more cars, and that is what advertising is about. but it does point at a simple fact, which is that the automobile industry in this country was on its back and

potentially poised to liquidate three years ago, and this president made decisions that were not very popular at the time that were guided by two guiding principles, one, that he should do what he could to make sure that 1 million jobs would not be lost, and two that the american automobile industry should be able to thrive global late it the right conditions were created, and that included the types of reforms and restructuring that chrysler and gm undertook in exchange for the assistance from the american taxpayer. he was not willing to allow, did not believe it was necessary to allow, the american automobile industry to collapse and disappear. and so he made the decisions he made an believes those were the

right decisions. andrea? -- andres? >> not supporting the syrian regime. a big risk in the relations between states. including the united states. to weaken the regimes they do not like. you understand what i am talking about. basically, what you have just presented to us, my question is what are the specific legal grounds? >> i refer you to the united nations and to our mission there

and to the state department. what is seen as a broad international consensus. against the behavior of the assad regime, the brutal killing of the syrian people. we think that is wrong, and we agree with many of our partners and allies around the world and in the region when we say that. i think again the images we have seen just this weekend demonstrate that the kind of behavior being carried out by the syrian forces under the control of the assad regime are vile and unacceptable. that is why we supported the united nations security council resolution, and that is why we will work with our allies to further pressure the regime to allow the syrian people the opportunity to choose their own future. that is the approach we take.

>> a question. i wanted to remind you that lynching, a lynching is illegal in the united states. but i will not talk about that. >> 1982. >> lynching. many like-minded people. >> do you have a question? >> i am a question. can you assure me that they are not working within syria with their special forces? >> i am sorry. what is the question? >> can you tell me that the united states is not taking any military steps? >> i think we have made it very clear that we are pursuing a political and diplomatic force with regards to syria, and we will continue to do so.

alexis? >> jay, you're talking about congress. what is new about marching toward the expiration date? we are a couple of weeks away from that. trying to work towards a solution that does not end up in a crisis? >> i think we have made clear, the president has made clear, that congress has to act without drama and without delay to make sure that the payroll tax cut is extended throughout the year, that the unemployment benefits are extended, and that's another item is an extended. the kind of economic growth i was just pointing out to you and the kind of job creation that we saw in january needs to be continued, and in order to help the process forward, we in washington should not take

steps that undermine economic growth and job creation, and certainly a failure to extend the payroll tax that affects 160 million americans for.would be just that sort of step that could do that, so we are in conversations with folks on the hill. this is the process being led by the hill. it should be fairly simple. we will see if that is, in fact, the case, but we believe that everyone in congress, republicans and democrats alike, should see it as a right thing to do to make sure that 160 million americans do not have their taxes go up on march 1, and to make sure that on a macro level, steps are taken to make sure we a positive economic growth and have positive job creation. >> governor o'malley mentioned

that some policy was rooted in politics as opposed to conscience. does the president accept that? >> i did not see those comments. >> talking about the bishop letters, saying that many of the bishops are republicans. >> i did not see that. we have worked to find the appropriate balance between religious beliefs and the need to provide preventive services to american women and to ensure that american women have access to those services regardless of where they work, and we have carved out an exemption for churches and other houses of worship, and we will work going forward with institutions where the employer is affiliated with a church, for example comet but where many, many of the employees are of all faiths, to

find a way to ensure that the policy is implemented and that all women have access to these services that also deals with the concerns that have been expressed. >> questions. you said that part of the reasons people are upset about this is that it was misreported. but >> i did not see that. i do not watch all of the sunday shows. i do not have -- i think what we see here is the need to find an appropriate balance between concerns on the one hand and the obligation to provide services to all american women. eleanor? >> you seem to be suggesting that you are looking for some sort of a balance, that it is not a done deal. as part of that, how do you answer criticism that the government is working with religious organizations to pay for things they find morally objectionable?

>> i really do not have more to say. the president agrees with this decision that we need to provide these services. they have enormous health benefits for american women, and the exemption that we carved out is appropriate, and we will continue to lead discussions about the implementation can be done that could address some of these concerns, but the politics itself is clear. >> appropriate? >> i understand there are some objections and that there are people who disagree with us, and we will work with those. we believe that these services are important. and that american women deserve to have access to that kind of insurance coverage regardless of where they worked. leslie? >> the secretariat made some

remarks yesterday. she said they are looking at more sanctions, including those dealing with funding in shipments. those that are still finding the regime and sending them weapons. can you elaborate on that? >> no, i cannot elaborate on identifying countries or individuals, but what i have been saying here should echo what secretary clinton said about our approach going forward in trying to further isolate and pressure the assad regime. last month. >> some of us, the agenda. what else will be on the agenda? and what will the president sent? >> well, i do not want to

preview the president's conversations whatever comments he might make, or the vice presidents. -- president's. we have an important jon bilateral relationship with china, and a number of issues are always on the agenda when we sit down with chinese leadership, and that will be the case with this visit, as well. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> coming up tomorrow, a federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. he is testifying before the budget committee on the economic outlook. you can see that live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on our compendium network, c-span3. >> tonight on "the communicators," the third in our series from the consumer electronics show, consumer technology and policy, this week

with the head of mercedes-benz cars, and the vice president for advanced technology at toyota. they will discuss issues, including improving car safety. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this past week, house and senate lawmakers continue negotiations to extend the payroll tax cut for workers. they will continue their work on tuesday with a fourth public meeting. the cuts expire by the end of the month, and all sides agree to extend it. >> i do not hear a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy that if it enhances their lives, and it enhances their ability for them to get a job down the road, i do not year a disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it, but the fundamental philosophy of trying to rearm people with an education so that when they go into the work

force, they have an additional tool. >> the link with the program, designed and 470-plus years functioning, to have financial support when you lose your job, to a requirement that you have to be in this training, i think, first of all, will not work for some of the practical considerations, but second, i do not think it contradicts the notion you are suggesting and i agree with that the more education you have today, the better off you will be in this economy. >> watch the rest of this meeting or the other as they head held at the c-span.org archive. >> my friends, america, where freedom is made real for all, without regard to race or belief or economic condition. [cheers and applause] .

i mean a new america that has the ancient ideas that made it -- a man can solve their differences, not killing each other. >> as the candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders that had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the politics of the radical the left continue to offer one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again we can spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> the federal aviation

administration temporarily closed last year because the house and senate could not agree on funding the agency. after passing 23 short-term bills, congress has come to an agreement on long-term funding for the faa. on tomorrow's "washington journal," we talk to a german about the faa and negotiations on the highway bill. also tomorrow, the house education and work force committee hold a hearing on the president obama recess appointments to fill posts at the national labor relations board. we will talk with a representative from one state, and we will look at the enforcement of campaign laws. that is on tomorrow morning as "washington journal," at 7:00 a.m. eastern. now, the house is coming back in. h.r. 11762 de novo. first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.

remaining electronic votes will be conduct as five-minute votes. the unfinished wiz is on adoption of h r. 537. the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 537, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1734, to decrease the deficit by realigning consolidating, selling, disposing and improving the efficient soif federal buildings and other civilian real property and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 233, the nays

are 155. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. >> i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the conference report accompanying h.r. 658. the speaker pro tempore: five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1162, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1162, a bill to provide the quileute indian tribe tsunami and flood protection and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of the vote will rise. a vote is ordered. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 381rk the nays are 7. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3581 to amend the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 to increase transparency in federal budgeting and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. members will please take conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have fife legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 17 346789 the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 534, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h r. 1734. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h r. 1734, which the clerk will report by title. clip a bill to reduce the deficit by realigning, selling, disposing of civilian real property and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman mr. denham an the gentlewoman, ms. norton each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. denham: the purpose of h.r. 1734 is to shrink the federal real property footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling what we don't need and better utilizing what we keep. in fiscal year 2009 alone, the federal government wasted more than 1.-- more than $1.7 billion in operating underused properties. unfortunately, under existing law, solving this problem is not easy. the process is too cumbersome and congested with red tape. the administration has tried but realized it cannot achieve major savings without reform. as a result h r. 1734 includes a bipartisan solution to this problem, establishing a civilian process. unlike brac, the purpose of h.r. 1734 is to save money and the commission would have to recommend actions that would result in net savings. the administration believes there are several million

dollars worth of high-value properties that could be sold quickly and i agree with the assessment. it has been on the high-risk list for nearly a decade now and we have seen the waste firsthand. the bill create asinine-member commission that would review federal properties and recommend specific actions to more efficiently house federal employees. the chair: the gentleman from california will suspend. the house is not in order. i ask my colleagues to remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. the commission could recommend property sales, consolidations, redevelopments or other property actions. the bill does not apply to military bases, national parks or recreation areas or a variety of other properties. the administration would have 30 days to reject the

recommendations or force them to congress for an up or down vote. if approved, agencies would be required to implement them. in conclusion, let me say that both republican and democrat administrations have tried to work within the system to get rid of unneeded federal property and have failed. both parties know the process is broken and have proposed an independent commission to solve the problem. i believe this bill is a big step in the right direction and i think you for your consideration. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from the texas texas -- from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five lem slative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1734 and include extraneous remarks within the record. the chair: without objection. ms. norton: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1734, the civilian property realignment act. both democrats and republicans

agree that we need a system to dispose of and consolidate excess federal property. i have worked diligently with the chairman for such a bill for most of this year. however, the bill before us does not refrequent the bipartisan compromise i agreed to. moreover, i have just learned that the president also opposes the bill and apparently it does not even reflect a compromise among republicans. i opposed the bill, this bill, in the transportation and infrastructure committee and it passed on a party line vote. the bill before us today is essentially the same bill that i opposed at the transportation and infrastructure committee markup. shortly after that markup, the

oversight and government reform committee, on which i also serve, approved a bipartisan alternative bill by voice vote which i supported because it did not have the issues i have with the bill before us today. why was the transportation and infrastructure bill rushed to the rules committee on friday and quickly brought to the floor today? why didn't we take the time to craft a bill that could pass the house with bipartisan support and that stands a chance to pass in the senate. most importantly, mr. chairman, why isn't the bipartisan bill i

agreed to before us on this floor this evening? when i testified before the rules committee on friday, i indicated i would support the bill if the protections in existing law for the environment and the homeless were included in the bill. these protections are not included in the bill. the rules committee reported out a bill with no self-executing amendments. instead, they made several amendments, including mine, in order for four -- for floor consideration. i could have done that all along. there are no assurances whatever that my amendments would be adopted on this floor. the only way to ensure that my amendments were included in the

bill would have been for the rules committee to have adopted a rule that made my amendments self-executing and therefore a part of the bill before us today. i will not stand here today to support a bill i consistently opposed at transportation and infrastructure committee markups on a hope and a prayer that my amendments will be adopted on the floor. i will not offer as amendments provisions i had every reason to expect would be part of the bill reported out of the rules committee. to offer my amendments separately is to risk and greatly to risk their defeat while the bill before us, which

i oppose, still passes. i will not be used to give bipartisan cover to this bill or to paper over a divide among republicans. the subcommittee that i serve on had two excellent hearings on the creation of the civilian property realignment commission. i support the original bipartisan idea of assembling a civilian property realignment commission. but there are several portions of h.r. 1734 before us on the floor right now that do not reflect a revised, bipartisan bill. i consistently attempted to make the needed changes to this bill and they were unacceptable at the committee markup, at the

full committee markup, and now at rules. where my changes were not incorporated into the bill on this floor today. as subcommittee ranking member, i was not informed that fi wanted the changes in the bill, i would have to offer my amendments separately in the floor. who would have agreed to that as a bipartisan compromise? i have been consistent in offering amendments to this bill, to eliminate the waiver of the national environmental policy act or nepa and the preclusion of a review of excess federal property for homeless service providers and other public benefit conveyances by the civilian property realignment commission

that would be created by this bill. curiously, the chairman now brings to the floor his own amendment concerning homelessness providers which mirrors the homelessness section of the amendment assigned to me, but he does not include in his amendment the nepa provision section of my amendment to which he and i agreed in order to reach a compromise. the bill as it stands severely limits the review of federal property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and other public benefit conveyances by the civilian property realignment commission. by that passing -- by bypassing

that in the -- it reduces the pool of properties available for transfer to homeless service providers. in these difficult times, extinguishing the right of first refusal for homeless providers would be a severe blow to a sector that has already had to contend with a huge downturn in federal giving during the recent resession. the experience, moreover, with homeless service providers is that they take only the smallest properties and i had already agreed to shorten the time period for providers to claim properties. secondly the bill as reported would waive the application of the national environment policy act. which i have always strongly opposed. section 18-b waives compliance

with nepa for the actions of the president, the commission or any federal agency when considering any of the commission's recommendations except during the process of property disposal and during the process of relocating functions from a property being disposed of or realigned to another location. it is important to carefully conduct the environmental review on any decision to close, relocate or recon figure a federal facility in time for the commission to consider the full implications of its actions. the current language precludes a full review of the actions until after a decision to sell or dispose of a piece of federal property has already been made. this problem could have easily been fixed by including language

that required agencies to submit information about the environmental conditions of a building and any information that the agency might have had about the potential impacts to the environment if a property was disposed of, consolidated or redeveloped. therefore, i must oppose the bill before us and i urge opposition until a bipartisan bill, reflecting the issues i have discussed, is presented on the floor. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. just quickly in response, let me first say thank you to the ranking member of the subcommittee. we have worked on this bill for a year. we agreed on language, we accepted the administration's

language and worked with o.m.b. on making sure that this was a bill that not only passed with bipartisan support but something that the senate would welcome and the president would sign. so it's been a good year, we've i think worked very well together on the issue up until this point. and, you know, i know that it became somewhat contentious in committee because we had several different properties listed in the bill to help pay for and make sure that this was a pay-as-you-go bill. we pulled those out in an effort to create bipartisanship and make sure that those issues that the other side of the aisle wanted to address were addressed. but we went a step further and as the ranking member of the committee asked for several different amendments, we agread to those amendments. the environmental issue, we agreed to her amendment. you know, even o.m.b. had suggested that they didn't want lawsuits to apply, we went ahead and in a sense of bipartisanship wanted to agree to the ranking

member's amendment on this as well as the homeless. we agreed to a $2 million exemption to make sure the homeless were well taken care of. that was changed to $3 million. we agreed to that. it was changed to $5 million. we agread to that as well, even -- we agreed to that as well even though i can't imagine the homeless wanting to utilize a $5 million piece of property, seems excessive. but in the true scope of bipartisanship, we agreed. i keep my word. i will continue to support the ranking member's amendment on the floor today as well as i've included it in my amendment. i stand by my word and i hope others on this floor would do the same. at this time, mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the former chairman of the subcommittee. >> i thank the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. and i do stand here as a former chairman of the economic development, public buildings and emergency management subcommittee who served alongside the distinguished

delegate from the district of columbia. and for the years i was chairman, we worked very well together and so it's of great disappointment that i come to the floor tonight when we thought we haden agreement, in fact we did -- had an agreement, in fact we did have an agreement. we're willing to accept the gentlelady's amendment and put it into the bill but yet here we are today turning this into a partisan bill which as i said is very disappointing. and she said she couldn't come to the floor just on hope. she had more than hope, she had the word of the chairman of the committee. i'm here in strong support of this act. there's immediate savings, a savings of up to $1 billion in a year. this year alone. and $15 billion over the next 10 years. it reduces the size of government, the commission will -- was tasked with reducing the federal footprint and as we know we have an example, right down on pennsylvania avenue. the old post office building is going to be put up for long-term

lease and we've got some of the premier hotel operators in the world that want to turn that into a first-rate premier hotel right on pennsylvania avenue. whether it's the waldorf hiser toia or the marriott or the trump organization, they all want to take that and immediately turn it into a hotel. construction jobs, jobs that are going to be in that hotel working for the long-term. it's really unfortunate that this bill is going to be made partisan this evening. it establishes a real property commission that nine opinion person -- commission. that commission will consolidate the footprint, maximize the utilization of the buildings and facilities, reduce alliance on costly lease space, sell or redevelop assets that are underutilized. it reduces the operating and maintenance cost to the federal civilian real properties through the realignment of other real properties, reduces redundancy, overlap and costs associated with field offices, creates incentives for federal agencies

to achieve greater efficiency in their envin -- inventories of real property the federal government has. facilitates and expedites the sale or disposal of unneeded civilian properties and assists federal agencies in achieving the government's sustainable goals by reducing access -- excess space as well as by leveraging new technologies. and as the former chair of this committee, we held hearings about the federal courthouses. we have overbuilt federal courthouses in many places in this country for years. for years we've done that. and this is going to take a step in reducing what we've been doing and consolidating, doing things that's appropriate and proper to save the taxpayers money. it takes the politics out of the process. provides for an expedited review and up or down d consideration of the -- up or down consideration of the commission's recommendations. congress has the opportunity to disapprove en bloc which censuring that politics will be removed from this process. provides for one-time appropriations to fully offset from the building and

acquisitioamnthi used to repay the treasury. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for another minute. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman. it deals with public properties, military installations, properties being essential for national security and national parks are not subject to this jurisdiction. so, again, i come to the floor tonight with deep disappointment in the ranking member who for so many years has worked in a bipartisan way on this subcommittee, yet tonight, it's no surprise that the subcommittee chairman, full committee chairman agreed to accept her amendment in totality and most importantly and something that's lacking in washington today and lacking in congress is people not keeping their word and the chairman of the subcommittee is keeping his word which is extremely important in this whole process. so i urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 1734, the civilian property realignment act, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i yield myself two minutes.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i hope the gentleman is not implying that i do not keep my word and let me be clear what my word was. i would support a bipartisan bill, not that i would support the opportunity to offer amendments on the floor. the gentleman knows quite well that the nepa amendment is an amendment that his side generally does not support. let me be plain. they generally don't support this. the reason that the gentleman was willing to somehow come forward with what would appear to be a redundant amendment on homelessness, since my already had homelessness in it, is because he wanted to separate himself from the nepa amendment and he knows full well that i would never support his bill without the nepa provisions that i have spent months, months changing. this is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process until we went to rules

committee. when somebody made it clear, and don't know who it was, that this bill could be brought forward, the very bill i voted against, leaving it to this member to take her chances that that side of the aisle would support and -- an amendment of the kind they have resolutely refused to support on the floor but that she believed that because a compromise had been worked out with the chairman, they might on this occasion support it. i keep my word as well and i yield to the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for how much time? ms. norton: i recognize the gentleman for three minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much. and i thank the gentlelady for

yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1734, the civilian property realignment act. although i support the efforts to improve the process used to dispose of federal property, i believe that in its current form, this legislation inappropriately limits the access that service providers for the homeless have traditionally had to surplus federal property. current law requires that all federal surplus properties be considered for use by entities that provide assistance for the homeless. this legislation would create a bright light commission to dispose of unused federal property, would require a majority vote of this commission before any specific property could be considered for homeless assistance. this provision is misguided and should have been elimb nat -- eliminated before this legislation reached the floor. i committed to the rules committee a commonsense amendment that would have fixed this problem. my amendment would have ensured

that section 501 of the homeless assistant act which provides for the discounted conveyance of surplus federal property to homeless assistance providers would continue to apply to all properties approved for disposal by the commission established by h.r. 1734. unfortunately my amendment was not made in order. there's no evidence that the current process for reviewing properties for use by homes assistant providers -- assistance providers has slowed property disposals. indeed, more than 14,000 properties have been completed, title 5 reviews, and remain on the government's books awaiting disposal. according to the national center on family homelessness, the number of homeless children in america increased by more than 448,000 from 2007 to 2010 due to the financial crisis.

approximately 1.6 million children, one in 45 children, were homeless in 2010, a 38% increase over the level of childhood homeless innocence 2007. with access to surplus federal property, homeless assistance for our providers can provide housing, support services and employment assistance to help the homeless get back on their feet. we should not make killer altogether rations to the program. i understand the gentlelady from the district of columbia plans to offer an amendment that would require the appliance of section 501 to the extent practicable. if she does i would support that. this is a step in the right direction and i commend her efforts but there should be no limitations on the size and value of the properties that should be subject to review for potential use by homeless assistance groups. for that reason i cannot support this legislation so long as it

contains provisions that would be harmful to the homeless and would reduce resources available to the homeless assistance providers. i urge members to oppose 1734. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. denham: mr. speaker, just to reiterate one more time, i support the gentlelady's amendment, i look forward to voting on it, as long as she brings it up. support the homeless in this bill, we agreed to it in rule, still support it today and there will definitely be sufficient votes on this side of the aisle if she decides to bring it up. and you know what? if it doesn't pass, then vote against the bill. but if you believe in the homeless issue then put your amendment up and let's have the votes on it. at this time, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, also a former subcommittee chairman. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it was a privilege for two years

to be the ranking member of this subcommittee. mr. diaz-balart: and i will tell that you the subcommittee has never been a partisan subcommittee and i commend chairman denham for keeping that tradition of focusing on the issues, working with both sides of the aisle, to try to get good products without becoming and getting into this partisan melee. so i commend the chairman for continuing that tradition. he's done so in a marvelous way. and here's another example. he said -- he sat down with the ranking member, they worked out all of these issues. the chairman actually went to the rules committee, testified in the rules committee in favor to make these amendments, the ranking members' amendments, so they would be in order, lo and behold, the rules committee did what both of them in a bipartisan way asked for. they allowed for those amendments to be in order. now, i'm -- and i have the highest admiration and respect for the ranking member, i've worked very closely with her, but i'm a little bit frankly intrigued. so, the ranking member now says,

well, her amendments that the chairman asked to be made in order, the moments that he supported, that he continues to support, that he says that he supported, that he supported in the rules committee, she says, if those amendments don't pass, well then she would vote against the bill so, therefore she's not going to bring up the amendments -- uh, excuse me? what usually happens is, heck, you bring up amendments even if the ranking member or the chairman doesn't agree with you. but if you have the agreement of the chairman of the committee, he's here again stating it, who's worked with you the entire process, the chairman of the committee helped you get those amendments made in order in the rules committee, they come to the floor made in order, here they are ready to discuss and then you say, no, now i'm not going to put up the amendments because if they don't pass and now vote against the bill, i agree with the chairman. put the amendments up. if the amendments don't pass, even with the support of the chairman, and the ranking member, and then there's good

reason for the ranking member to vote against it but to withdraw the amendment when you have everybody's support, when you're pretty much guaranteed -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. diaz-balart: thank you. you're pretty much guaranteed that they're going to pass because you have the ranking member on one party and the chairman who worked with the ranking member, they both agree, they're noncontroversial, they're ready to go and all of a sudden the running backing -- ranking member pulls them back and says, you know, for some reason i'm going to pull them back, if they don't pass i'm going to vote against the bill, well, bring them up, if they don't pass, vote against the bill. but you won't know in the democratic process if an amendment's going to pass even if the chairman and ranking member approve it, until you bring it up. so i would respectfully suggest that the ranking member who i admire, just bring up the amendments, the chairman has supported them in the rules committee, he's bringing them up, let's hopefully work on

getting votes because he is working with you to try to get the votes. if they don't pass, vote against it but the chance is they're going to pass. let's let the democratic process go forward and again i commend this chairman for keeping tradition of not bogging down in partisan politics. mr. chairman, you are to be commended for that. thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i take such time as i may require. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i wish that the -- i wish that the chairman, he and i have had a very cordial and amicable relationship, i only wish that he could guarantee that my amendment would in fact pass. i'm afraid that watching his -- watching his caucus in operation for a full year, when they could not even agree whether or not the united states government should go into default, i can't blame him

for not being able to guarantee that it would pass but let me say why taking my chances that they would pass, even given his good faith that they would pass is not enough. if in fact he wanted to make sure the amendments pass he could have done that. instead, he does something curious indeed. he looks at my amendment, dissects it irk takes the part of the amendment he regards as less controversial on, and on his side, both parts will be controversial, but he takes the less controversial part, he says, i take this part, exactly like the homeless part of the norton amendment, but the other part, cha i agreed to with the rules -- in the rules

committee, i will not identify with on this floor. what would you think if the chairman had gone with you to rules saying he supported the amendment and when we got to the floor was -- went to the trouble of pulling out one section of my amendment only to claim as his own, why wouldn't he simply embrace my amendment? why wouldn't he have made sure that this was a bipartisan bill so that i would be -- i would not be put in this position. ? this is important to understand. if i bring up my amendment separately and they go down, what will be before the house is essentially the bill i voted against in the transportation and infrastructure committee. do i look like a fool?

i voted against the bill that is on the floor in all good faith the chairman cannot guarantee that the full bill, with the changes that he and i agreed to will be the bill that in fact emerges here this evening. in fact, let me be even blunter, what is more likely to emerge here this evening is the original bill that i, in fact, opposed, on the transportation and infrastructure committee, the only way to make sure that my major objection, which was to nepa, is included in the bill, would have been for this bill to come forward with what agried to in the bill already. for me to have to come to the floor to beg that that a part of this bill which was central to my agreement to support it now get a vote, especially from

a side -- especially from a side of this chamber which has consistently voted against the exception. wait a minute. genks exceptions like the section that is at issue here. -- against exceptions like the section that is at issue here is to not understand how to put together a compromise. if you've got a compromise you come to the floor, you don't take out part of what the compromise was about, leave the other so that she can fend for herself on the floor, knowing full well that the chances of getting that part of the amendment passed are based on past experience not very great. so i -- the reason i oppose it is because i believe that perhaps with, i don't know if other members on the democratic side would be accepted or not but i believe that as it now stands, the bill will look essentially like the bill that

i spent all year opposing because my major reasons for opposing it have not been incorporated in the bill that will be the final bill voted on and if i were to depend only on an amendment on this floor to get this provision, which has always been controversial on their side in the bill, i don't think there's anybody on that side who will guarantee that on their side my omit with the nepa provision would in fact pass. and that -- in that event, what i would be left with is the very bill that i have voted against for an entire year and that is why i object to the way in which this bill has been handled. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve her time. ms. norton: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. denham: thank you, mr.

speaker. we're talking a lot around this issue. she wants it guaranteed, let me give you a guarantee. she can bring her amendment up right now, we'll do it on a voice vote, it will be within the text of the bill within 30 minutes and that's what we're voting on tomorrow. very simple, we have the vote, we want the amendment, we want the democrat support and want this to be a bipartisan bill system of all she has to do, bring up the amendment right now, we'll voice vote it, it will be part of the bill. now the question is, do you or don't you want the bill? ms. norton: i want the bill you and i afreed upon and that was this -- that was the bill that had nepa in it and homeless in it. why did you come forward with an amendment that only has the homeless in it that is the exact mirror image of the homeless section of my bill but did not include the nepa section. mr. denham: i have a second amendment just in case,

unfortunately, trust leave this is room. in the unfortunate case that somebody does not offer their amendment, i've got my own. but i am happy to withdraw my amendment and voice vote her amendment right here, so it's in the bill, and we have a bipartisan agreement. i'm not sure what the -- is. you want a guarantee? here's a guarantee. let's do it. bipartisan. let's get unanimous support out of this house and show the american people we can agree on cutting waste, we can agree on creating jobs, we can agree on selling things we just don't need. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> is it not true that if this language had opinion in the bill that someone would not have done an amendment to take

it out? so there's no more guarantee. the chair: the gentleman has not stated a proper inquiry. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for three minutes. >> i thank the chair and the gentleman from california. i stand in support of the civilian property realignment act. i come from the private sector where sometimes assets become liabilities. it becomes a liability when it costs so much to insure it, secure it, and maintain it, it no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. when you look at, i look at it like a tv show, i haven't seen it, but they tell me it's called "hoarders," they collect things, it doesn't -- they have no use for it, but it takes up space in their house and takes up their money. we have to reduce our properties because the american taxpayer foots -- foots the

bill for these properties that are underused or unused. mr. kelly: wouldn't it make sense to take it from a liability side to an asset side. it would go into the private sector, they would convert them to a use that makes more sense today and pay taxes on it. this is a win-win for the american taxpayer. i will submit to you if this were not a re-election year, we wouldn't be going through the gymnastics in this house other things that make no sense to the people who pay for them, the american taxpayer. after sitting here for one year and watching this ridiculous tennis match, figuring out if we came to reduce the side size of government if we reamy came to create jobs, if we really came for something that makes sense for america, why are we wasting america's time on things that don't make sense

for the people who pick up the tab, the american tax ier. -- taxpayer. we are not the ones who pay for it. i have gotten to the point where i cannot stand listening to this garbage that comes out of here. it does nothing but create animosity. we have reached way past the midnight hour. i strongly support the gentleman's bill. the civilian property realignment act. let's change these things from being liabilities into assets. let's take the government's foot off the throat of the american taxpayers. let's turn the country around and make it a useful situation. i yield pack my time and i thank the gentleman. please stand strong, we need to get these issues done. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the chair would remine all members to direct their comments to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from district of columbia. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. norton: i don't agree that

we're past the midnight hour but i think we're past the point of no return. the gentleman wanted to talk about costs, this bill costs $68 million, a great deal more than another bill that i did that i do support. the government -- the oversight and government reform bill. i serve on that committee as well. i was willing, since this bill was coming to the floor first and since i had worked with the gentleman on this bill all along, to support this bill but i don't think you can make the case that this bill is less costly than the oversight and government reform bill. i would have thought that my colleagues on the other side would have gotten together to work that problem out for themselves. my chief regret is to spend a lot of time and effort and conversation that i believe was getting somewhere, perhaps it

was all a big misunderstanding, if it were, if that's what it was, we certainly informed the other side about my concern before we came. that concern remains, i don't have any further speakers, i regretfully cannot support the bill before us. i don't believe i have any further reason to reserve. so i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. -- the gentlelady from california -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. once again this is the amazing thing about politics. you can have an adwreept and support the other side's opinion and still have a disagreement, only in this house.

i support getting this country back in line with our fiscal responsibility. we have a $15 trillion debt and we have to do something about it. we have an opportunity to have a bipartisan agreement. once that the president is ask -- one that the president is asking for, one that he included in his state of the union, to get done. if he cannot get his own party, if he cannot get the senate to come along with his ideas, how with rethe obstructionists? we want to sell properties, we want to sell the noncontroversial properties, 14,000 properties have been identified as excess underutilized properties that we could be moving immediately. we could be creating billions of dollars to pay down our debt. we could be redeveloping so many of these historic buildings that are sitting empty. creating jobs. getting these properties back on the tax roll. this is a bipartisan solution that i'm amazed at some of the rhetoric tonight. again, if the ranking member wants to guarantee -- a guarantee, we'll give her a guarantee tonight. bring up the amendment.

we will voice vote it right now. she will have a guarantee that's in the bill. but yet she doesn't want to do it. so, i have a separate amendment, if we cannot get the other side of the aisle to present theirs, we will present ours. again, we've got to get rid of some of this waste. this additional expense. $1.9 billion we pay just in operating costs of these properties we don't use today. properties that are sitting vacant. if republicans and democrats can't agree that an empty building that's not being used, that has no reason to be used in the future cannot be eliminated to reduce our debt, the real question is, what can we agree on? this is the most simplest of deficit reduction plans. this is one the president has asked for multiple times.

mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. all time for general debate has expired. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on transportation and infrastructure printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rules, pardon me , the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 112-11 is adopted. the further amendment under the five-minute rule shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill ads as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-385. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question. the chair understands amendment 1 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment 2 printed in house report 112-385. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. denham: mr. speaker, am i to understand that the amendment before mine is not being brought up? the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. denham: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at dt desk -- at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-385 offed by mr. denham of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 557, the gentleman from california, mr. denham, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: mr. chairman, this amendment reflects what was agreed to by the gentlewoman from the district of columbia on the homeless issue. the amendment ensures that there is a reasonable review of properties for use by the

homeless. under current law the review process is covered by a homeless assistance act. this amendment applies that law in a streamlined way to civilian property realignment process created in h.r. 1734. the streamlined review process would set a clear timeframe and apply to the types of properties normally used for the homeless, those less than 25,000 square feet or not more than five million -- $5 million in value. over the 25 years since it was enacted, 82 properties have been conveyed for homeless use. in 25 years, just 82 properties have been conveyed and we want to continue to extend that seeing that there may be other opportunities. typically these are small properties used for shelters and similar types of assistance. the larger properties tend to be warehouses for food banks. given this, the amendment provides two triggers, one based on size and another on value, to ensure properties that may be appropriated -- appropriate are considered for homeless use.

this is a reasonable compromise to this issue. i worked closely with the ranking member of our subcommittee and on friday we had agreed to the solution, despite reversing her decision. i'll move forward on the agreed-upon language. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. denham: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. is there a member opposed? the gentleman from california. mr. denham: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 1123 -- 112-385 for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. conyers: i have an amendment at --

mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 537, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, both the transportation, infrastructure and the oversight and government reform committees have marked up legislation to save money through the disposal of federal property. we've identified bipartisan exron ground on the subject in the past. i hope we can continue to do so with this bill. in the oversight and government reform committee, members and staff have worked on a bipartisan basis to report legislation, expediting the disposal of real federal property. the bill reported unanimously included by voice vote my amendment to protect the ability of local governments to work with the federal government on real property disposal. the amendment before us today includes identical language to protect local planning prerogatives and to ensure that

federal decisions take cognizance of local circumstances. i reiterate, an amendment that had republican support on the oversight and government reform committee. i introduced this amendment because i have direct experience with successful real property disposal in my northern virginia district. my predecessor, republican tom davis of virginia, worked with me and my colleagues in local government and with the g.s.a. to sell the prison site which was under federal control to fairfax county, virginia. the land transfer saved the federal government the cost of maintaining over 330 structures on the property and many historic buildings. in collaboration with the community, we created a new park with cultural and recreationality attractions and the project set off a development boom in the southern part of our community. in short, this land transfer was a win-win for the federal government, for the local government, both benefited from the sale and local residents who lacked adequate park land and a

win for the private sector which capitalized on residential and commercial and redevelopment opportunities as a result. other communities across america ought to also be able to work with the federal government on mutually beneficial land disposal processes like those that turned the prison noon a vibrant new community in my county. mr. denham and the t&i committee have included stipulations that the commission for property disposal include individuals with historic preservation and community development expertise. and i appreciate that. however, these individuals cannot possibly know about the individual local circumstances in communities all across america. for that expertise, we must return to the -- expertise, we must return to the conservative principle that local people, not the federal government, know most about their own local circumstances. to that amend, to that end, my simple amendment would protect the ability of local governments to work with g.s.a., to dispose

of real property which would be suitable for park land. this amendment would not interfere with the author's objective of liquidating high asset federal buildings, it simply would give local governments and local taxpayers a voice in the disposal of property in their backyards if that property is suitable for parkland. as we learned in oversight and government reform hearings on this topic, my amendment would save the federal government money because it would eliminate federal maintenance expenses and we know that maintenance cost represents the largest and most achievable cost savings opportunity in real property disposal. in summary, this amendment is based on local success, we realize working with congress, both tom davis and jim moran, to preserve park land and save money for the federal government. similar language was adopted unanimously in the committee recently when we marked up

similar legislation to h.r. 1734. it would protect local governments and local citizens' role in land disposal process based on the conservative principle that the federal government doesn't always know best. i appreciate the time the t&i committee staff took to try to work with us on this amendment. i also appreciate the support for this language from democratic and republican members of the oversight and government reform committee during our markup and i urge our colleagues to support the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rice? mr. denham: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman qualifies and is recognized for five minutes. mr. denham: mr. chairman, this is drafted to ensure there is a streamline prod sess to sell or redevelop high-value assets. h.r. 1734 preserves our parks and open spaces by explicitly exempting them from the process outlined in the bill. despite this, the amendment by the gentleman from virginia would give the general services administration extraordinary

authority to take valuable properties off the table and set them aside. this amendment would give g.s.a. veto authority over the president, over congress by allowing g.s.a. to remove properties after recommendations are approved. the legislation includes opportunities for state and local governments to receive properties in the process and the commission will include expertise in community development. those considerations would be included in the recommendations submitted to the president and congress. i reserve the right to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, -- the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. connolly: i heard the eloquent cry for bipartisanship from the gentleman from california just a few minutes ago. here's an amendment that passed unanimously, without objection, on the oversight and government reform committee. it by no means grants the kind of authority just described to g.s.a. it is a simple protection for local governments to get in the

process. i regret very much that the fix is in, that we're not going to have bipartisan amendments adopted tonight to this bill and little wonder then that your bill have will have no support on this side of the aisle. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. all time is expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. connolly: mr. chairman. mr. chairman, on that i would ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california -- i'm sorry, from virginia, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-385. does the gentlelady from texas seek to offer her amendment?

the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-385 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 537, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. jackson scrax jackson i thank the chair very much -- ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair very much. as i understand this legislation, it is to establish a commission that deals with the civilian property realignment for this nation. some 340,000-plus square feet, i understand, is within the jurisdiction of the general services amendment. i want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member on many issues dealing with property around the nation. thank her for that leadership. my amendment is a simple amendment that expresses that the commission or other appropriate federal agencies should conduct a public should conduct a public information campaign to